The Left's Crackdown on Free Speech

A Christian couple has been fined more than their life savings and told to keep silent on their faith-based practice merely because they hurt a woman’s feelings. After the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, this case gives us a blueprint of how the left will pursue its battle against free speech and religious liberty, in the name of defending LGBT rights and sensibilities.

Worse, the order also tried to limit what the Kleins could even say about their business and their faith. Debates over whether this is a “gag order” aside, the ruling restricts the Klein’s freedom to run their business according to their consciences, and to defend their position in public.

Harsh Rulings and “Mental Rape”

It all started in January 2013, when Rachel Cryer and her mother visited “Sweet Cakes” to order a wedding cake. According to Rachel’s testimony, she was “mentally raped” by the baker’s response.

This denial emotionally devastated both Rachel and her fiance Laurel Bowman, according to the ruling. “In addition to other emotional responses, RBC (Rachel Bowman-Cryer) described that being raised a Christian in the Southern Baptist Church, (Aaron Klein’s) denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn’t supposed to be, that she wasn’t supposed to love or be loved, have a family, or go to heaven.”

Laurel - who was not present for the encounter - was also reportedly devastated. “LBC (Laurel Bowman-Cryer) who was raised Catholic, interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life.”

Both of these responses took Klein’s short business denial as a personal and religious slight against them - one so deep that it made them question whether or not they should exist at all. While this may seem downright crazy to some, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian wrote that “these are the reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everyone else.”

Rachel and Laurel had previously bought a cake from “Sweet Cakes” for Rachel’s mother’s heterosexual wedding, but they did not know the Kleins well. In her letter to the commission, Rachel referred to Aaron Klein as “the husband” because she did not know his name. Furthermore, on the very next day, the Bowman-Cryers found a baker willing to make their cake - and at a lower price.

How could it be considered “reasonable” for two grown women to be that emotionally - and even existentially - hurt after one of them had a brief encounter with a baker she barely knew? Should Aaron and Melissa Klein be held liable for such emotional instability?

The ruling says they should, to the tune of $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer and $60,000 to her partner, Laurel Bowman-Cryer - who wasn’t even there when the rejection took place. BOLI explicitly states that these damages are awarded “for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination.”

“Discrimination” and Freedom of Speech

In addition to the emotional damages allegedly inflicted by a person the Bowman-Cryers barely knew, BOLI also ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein to stop making any public statements about their policy against baking for same-sex weddings.

Specifically, the ruling ordered the Kleins to “cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published...any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations...will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation.”

Unfortunately for BOLI and Avakian, the Kleins did not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation,” but on the basis of perceived support for an event which their faith cannot condone. In the words of self-described gay rights activist Matt Stolhandske, “All people should have the right to decide whether or not to condone religious marriage ceremonies for gay couples.”

Stolhandske argues that asking for a cake is different than asking for a blessing on one’s marriage, but the Kleins do not agree. An artistic effort to support a public event can be interpreted as an implicit agreement with the event itself.

If Melissa Klein baked a cake saying “Congratulations, Rachel and Laurel, on your marriage!” it would have saved a lot of people a lot of headache, but it also would have betrayed Melissa’s belief that marriage - properly understood - is only between one man and one woman. It would seem as though Melissa thinks marriage could also be between two women.